User talk:49.178.174.232

January 2022
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Hate speech. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''You were already on a level 4 warning for personal attacks. Switching IPs does not give you the right to start over.'' Meters (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Barbarian. Stop your cross page edit warring, have you noticed how there are multiple users reverting you, and you are the only one reverting them? Mako001 (C) (T)  08:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict edits
Please stop making edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If you would like to edit in the topic area, please register an account and build up some experience in other areas until you have 500 edits and 30 days of experience. Otherwise, you are violating the extended-confirmed restriction present in this sensitive topic area. Firefangledfeathers 06:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * They should put this info at the top of the this article just like they have for other articles.49.178.174.232 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You should know what relates, we can't put templates on every article that relates. Doug Weller  talk 10:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
Do not add content to Riot unless a reliable, independent source calls the incident a "riot". You are describing a law enforcement shooting incident as a "riot" but that is not what the word means. Cullen328 (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you care to read the article all the sources you would find out that it was not just the police who shot at this peaceful protesters. There were others who attacked them. Perhaps you should look at some of the pictures.49.178.174.232 (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, a reliable, independent source describing this incident as "riot" is required. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. Wikipedia editors cannot look at photos of a violent incident and conclude thst it is a "riot". That is synthesis which is a variety of Original research, both of which are forbidden on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Hate speech shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''You have already broken 3RR on this article, and that does not even include the first edit by what appears to be your first IP. That IP was already given an edit warring warning, but this IP has not been, so here it is. You have no excuse for continuing.'' Meters (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Can we just block them and be done with it, I really think the rope has run out. After personal attacks, edit-warring and general disruption, now across multiple IPs, do we really need to just let them carry on despite receiving no fewer than four level four warnings in 24 hours? Mako001 (C) (T)  09:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's not going to be a straight forward AIV report at this point. You'd have to make the case that the same user is behind both IPs and thus has made a personal attack after a final warning (or the other warnings). The IP is now engaging on Talk:Hate speech so I'm going to what and see how that goes. My WP:AGF is done though. The user has been more than sufficiently warned. Any more disruption or problematic edits on other articles from related IPs and I'd support pushing this to AIN. Meters (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * See Doug Weller  talk  Doug Weller  talk 10:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * oops. Doug Weller  talk 11:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)